2009 CPEO Brownfields List Archive

From: "Schnapf, Lawrence" <Lawrence.Schnapf@srz.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:58:06 -0800 (PST)
Reply: cpeo-brownfields
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Reporting Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments
 
Title: [CPEO-BIF] Reporting Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments

Section 103 of CERCLA requires owners and operators of facilities to report releases of hazardous substances that exceed reportable quantity( RQ). EPA regulations define RQs as a quantity of hazardous substance that is released over a 24 hour period.

The RQ approach made sense in 1980 when mismanagement of hazardous wastes was common. However, the overwhelming number of existing contaminated sites are a result of legacy or historical contamination. Since it is unclear if this historic contamination occurred as a result of a release that exceeds RQ over 24 hrs or drip, drip, drip over long period of time there is no legal obligation to disclose.

There is an obscure provision in section 103 that some EPA investigators have called the "lasting provision" and used to cite  owners for failing to report but I haven't heard of this used since 1991.

Most states follow the CERCLA approach but a couple  have broader reporting obligations that require reporting of any releases even those purely historical in nature.
Larry Schnapf
Schulte Roth & Zabel
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-756-2205 (p)
212-593-5955 (f)

----- Original Message -----
From: brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org <brownfields-bounces@lists.cpeo.org>
To: Brownfields Internet Forum <brownfields@lists.cpeo.org>
Sent: Sun Nov 22 15:15:56 2009
Subject: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Reporting Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments

Larry, could you please elaborate on the last sentence *Indeed, more brownfield
sites were created in 2009 than were
cleaned up!*? Are you referring to migration of soil and groundwater
contamination to adjacent properties either because cleanup is not happening or
because of incomplete/self-directed cleanups?

Also, I would also appreciate if anyone direct me to reports documenting these
various conditions under which legacy pollution is not required to be reported
to the relevant agencies during redevelopment/sale of properties (when I expect
these conditions to be made public).

Deb.

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org

*****************************************************************************
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this 
communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the 
purpose of avoiding U.S. federal tax penalties.
***************************************************************************** 



NOTICE

This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may 
contain confidential information that is privileged or that constitutes attorney 
work product.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is 
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately 
notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachment(s) from your system.  Thank you.
==============================================================================

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/brownfields-cpeo.org
  Prev by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Reporting Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments
Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Voluntary Cleanup vs. CERCLA
  Prev by Thread: [CPEO-BIF] ARNCO Corp. site, Elyria, Ohio
Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-BIF] Reporting Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index